Packers

[racepug]

How is it that Green Bay could have two outstanding QBs (one a Hall of Famer, the other a surefire future Hall of Famer) back-to-back and yet have only 2 Lombardis to show for it? I mean, Aaron Rodgers is one of the greatest QBs I can ever remember seeing but his Packers fold more often than not in the playoffs. What gives?

[Jay Z]

Honestly, at this point Rodgers bears some of the blame for not making it to the SB again.

I have alluded to this before here. I think I can state it more strongly now. The sort of dink and dunk drive you sometimes need at the end of a high pressure game, like in the Ice Bowl, or Tom Brady's first Super Bowl against the Rams, is not something that Rodgers does all that well. It's the weakest part of his game. He tightens up. He doesn't do bad reads or throw picks like Favre did, but he locks down on one thing and doesn't have ice water like Brady or Starr did. Now a lot of great quarterbacks can't do that consistently, either. But it's definitely the weakest part of his game.

Even in 2010 he was kind of meh in that area. Three of those games were won on defensive stops, and the other one was a blowout. In the SB at the end he did go down and get a FG, didn't put the game away but did that. Against Philly again he got a 1st down or two, didn't put the game away but helped. Against Chicago he went into a shell after the Urlacher pick and was kind of useless after that.

Now if it comes down to a Hail Mary or some amazing play, he's about the best ever. Like the 75 yard pass to Jones tonight. That he can do. The one TD at the end of the Super Bowl against Pittsburgh was just a great throw. If it comes down to that, he is the best. If it's key drives at the end, and he has to throw to a secondary receiver, he's going to lock in on Adams and Jones rather than someone else that's wide open. The CB covering Adams was awful tonight, yeah he should have kept going to that, but he should have had a response once they started doubling Adams. But the Packers lost their offensive swagger after that fumble on their second drive. With Brady, you can beat Brady, but if there's a fumble or a pick he doesn't care, he just comes right back. With Rodgers it bothers him, the pressure bothers him. I saw that in 2008, his first year as a regular. Nice stats, but end of game drives were just terrible. He got better after that in the regular season. Still he had an awful record in overtime for a long time, and I think he won his first because he hit Jordy Nelson on some 50 yard throw, something where he's the best.

So an MVP quarterback has to do more with those last two drives. Even in the other game, the throw Burrow made at the end. It was to his best receiver, but it wasn't good coverage really. It's just a throw you have to make at the end of the game.

Favre had more general issues after Holmgren left. Holmgren cost the team and himself big time, and he'll probably wait for the HOF a good long time if he ever gets in because of his huge ego in walking away from GB. But it happened. I don't think Mike Sherman was ever going to get to a SB. Good regular season coach, but never should have been GM and not a good postseason coach. The supporting cast was actually pretty good then still, but it wasn't going to happen. Favre never had the consistency overall (regular season) that Rodgers did past 95-97.

[Zero26]

Football is a team sport and an individual players talent(even a handful) have limited influence on a teams success. A good QB does not ensure postseason success and postseason success should not be the barometer on which QB's are judged. In terms of close games in the playoffs it might sound silly but luck is very important as one of the NFL's best teams is playing another one of the NFL's best teams and the game will likely be decided by a few plays. For example the Packers should have won the 2014 NFC championship game and the Seahawks really had no business winning that game. But then again the pendulum swings the other way for example the 2010 Packers were incredibly lucky to even reach the playoffs much less win the Super Bowl.

I will say Favre had a tendancy to throw interceptions in crucial situations(like all situations) and this cost the Packers most notably in the 2007 NFC championship. But at the end of the day the Packers got to the NFC title game 9 times and went 5-7 in the big games(CC or SB). A 10th season they were 15-1 and lost in the divisional round and this is an 11th season where they had the 1 seed. Sure they could have done better in those big games but they also could have done worse and regardless of the outcome the team maximized their chances under their 2 HOF QB's. It's hard to say those careers were wasted when the Packers were making deep playoff runs about 40% of the time since 94. You always wish for a dynasty but the NFL has parity and even the Pats dynasty had a 10 year stretch without a superbowl which without the before and after would have been seen as wasting Brady's prime. Maximizing chances is key and the Packers did that even if stuff like the 2014 NFC title game keeps them up at night.

The Lions are one of my three favorite teams and had IMO the best RB and WR of all time and combined for 1 should have been 2 playoff wins. Having the best to ever do it on your team is not by itself enough.

Another thought is besides the Patriots what teams have put together a better run of sustained success over the past 2-3 decades(after the Cowboys)? Steelers have made 4 and won 2. The Giants also made 3 superbowls and won 2. Ravens made and won 2 Super Bowls, the Colts, Broncos and Seahawks made 2 and won 1. Bucs had 2 Super Bowl wins 20 years apart with 2 playoff appearences in between. No one else has much more to show.

[Citizen]

Jay-Z pretty much said it all. Rodgers has a terrible time shrugging off setbacks, even ones that aren't his fault. And late in close games, when the idea should just be running the clock down, he tightens up.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

I respectfully disagree. Lafleur and staff/GM/Murphy bear the brunt of this. I've said a lot on this topic before so I'm not going to repeat too much of it, but I will give a couple of examples from last night.

Special teams have been an enormous problem all year -- and the Steelers blocked a FG and ran it back for a TD fairly early in the season. It got called back, but it wasn't hard to tell that if Lafluer didn't fix special teams, that would lose it for GB. Joe Buck even quoted him as saying that he hoped special teams "won't blow it for us this week." Well, it predictably did. Packers have had long snap/hold problems all year. Return problems. These are not things that are that difficult for a typical NFL head coach to fix over a season.

5 mins to go, 7 pt lead, I'm thinking solid drive and field goal and it's over. Yet, GB doesn't appear to have a plan for that situation. They throw a bomb in a blizzard on third. Last year, again, apparently no plan for the possibility of being down by 8, late in the game, with the ball near the goal line. Rodgers throws the ball away on third, assuming they'll go on fourth, but Lafleur kicks a FG instead. Game lost. These are not uncommon scenarios. Championship coaches have this stuff figured out during the week before the game -- they know what they'll do. The team knows.

Rodgers is awesome, yes. So is Adams. So is Jones. Defense? Kenny Clark, Preston Smith, a secondary that played very well for the last 10 games or so. They might be the most talented team in the league with one of the greatest QBs in a long time. Why are the Packers losing in the playoffs? Because Lafleur, at least at this point in his career, isn't capable of winning playoff games. Shannahan, conversely, did a very good job IMO.

The Packers that lost to Seattle weren't as talented as this GB team, IMO. It was surprising that they took that lead. This team, again, probably the most talented team in the league and should have won. But, you know, the 49ers have been a thorn to the Packers after the Favre years and they have been playing tough football these playoffs. Hats off to them. Overall, I think the GB offense and defense, including Rodgers, played a very good game, especially under the conditions.

[74_75_78_79_]

How is it that Green Bay could have two outstanding QBs (one a Hall of Famer, the other a surefire future Hall of Famer) back-to-back and yet have only 2 Lombardis to show for it? I mean, Aaron Rodgers is one of the greatest QBs I can ever remember seeing but his Packers fold more often than not in the playoffs. What gives?

The same can be said for the '10s Saints, and also '00s Colts (also the Baltimore Colts after 1959). Football is a team game. And when it comes to winning-it-all, that's especially the case! Only as good as your weakest link which, come playoff time, is almost always exposed; and the loser goes home. Now with the obvious parity as of late, you'll see a team here and there with a notable weakness that still wins the SB anyway (who wouldn't have been able to decades ago), but for the most part...only as good as your weakness; and last night, 13-4 top-seed GB's unaddressed STs did-them-in at bitter cold home vs the 10-7 California team.

"I hope our special teams doesn't blow it for us" - now can you picture Bill Walsh saying (resigning to) that? Not fully blaming the coach or coaches in all these examples already given. Again, its a team game and even the QB can share some blame in each case. But for the most part - as much as you hate to see championships "left on the table" when HOF QBs are involved - the first thing that really should always be said is that if it weren't for these HOF QBs mentioned...all those opportunities/playoff berths don't happen in the first place.

Last night's Forty Niners/Packers game? Reminds me of both Super Bowl VII and the '10 NFC Championship Game if Washington and Chicago respectively would've somehow pulled it off in the very end, adding even more to their 'comebacks' thus each winning...close-enough game scoreboard-wise throughout, but the one winning all along seemed to be in-control and have game in-hand before blowing it in the very end.

[Jay Z]

Agree that the Packers' special teams are a laughingstock. The FG block probably should have been returned for a TD. I have never seen anyone get in like that ever. They also had only 10 men on the field for the Niners' attempt.

But Favre or Rodgers has never had "The Drive." Favre's best playoff play came in his first game with that cross field throw to Sharpe. Rodgers' best was against Dallas in 2016 with the great throw to Jared Cook. Single throws. I will take Rodgers on a single throw like that over anyone. 4 minute drive I don't like him as much.

[Oszuscik]

Rodgers is a supremely talented quarterback and athlete, but in my opinion his mental makeup is what undoes him in the playoffs. This season especially he’s made a point to publicly state that he’s a “critical thinker”. Well, I think that factors in to his playoff failures. He gets in his own head and struggles to overcome setbacks. You see that during the regular season too, he barks at teammates and gets too upset over incompletions or failed plays. I also don’t think he’s capable of inspiring teammates the way Favre could or the way Brady can. None of this is to say that Rodgers isn’t among the best, but his head seems to work against him more often than not in the playoffs.

[Brian wolf]

You can blame special teams for the Packers last night but despite controlling the game, the offense was playing more not-to-lose, than opening up and winning the game. It seemed Rodgers was just throwing to Adams or Jones last night and the best ever QBs find a way to get everyone involved.

Once again, the Packers have a tough time controlling the Niner running game as Samuel seemed to will his way for a first down during that last second FG drive. A great overrall game by Samuel and Kittle came up clutch as well for Jimmy Whiteshoes ...

[Bryan]

This is a purely subjective 'analysis', but the loss to the Niners is up there in terms of 'angst'. Over the years when the Packers have made the playoffs, many times they come limping across the finish line and have players hurt and so forth. I think Rodgers in particular has covered up Green Bay's overall lack of depth. They've never really had a super team under Rodgers (like the Packers in 96 & 97), and I don't feel they've ever had the best personnel in the NFL any of those years. In 2010, even though the Packers were a 6 seed, all of their players were getting healthy right before the playoffs. I don't think its a coincidence that the Packers won the Super Bowl that year. The same thing happened in 2003...the Packers weren't great, but they were getting healthy at the end of the year and no one could stop their power running game. Losing to the Eagles on 4th and 26 was a real downer, because the Packers seemed setup for postseason success. I felt the same thing this year. All of their defensive players were healthy against the Niners, and the Niners couldn't really get anything going at all. Samuel and Kittle were non factors until the last drive of the game, and without the blocked punt TD the Niners probably still lose. The offense and special teams really let the Packers down.